The Experts below are selected from a list of 41868 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Tejo Spit - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
constructing Risks internalisation of flood Risks in the flood Risk Management Plan
Environmental Science & Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Matthijs M D Roos, Tejo Spit, Thomas Hartmann, Georg G JohannAbstract:Abstract Traditional flood protection methods have focused efforts on different measures to keep water out of floodplains. However, the European Flood Directive challenges this paradigm ( Hartmann and Driessen, 2013 ). Accordingly, flood Risk Management Plans should incorporate measures brought about by collaboration with local governments to develop and implement these measures ( Johann and Leismann, 2014 ). One of the challenges of these Plans is getting and keeping stakeholders involved in the processes related to flood Risk Management. This research shows that that this challenge revolves around how flood Risks are socially constructed. Therefore it is essential to understand and explain the Risk perception of stakeholders. System Theory by Luhmann provides the analytical distinction between ‘internal Risk’ and ‘external danger’ as key concepts to understand whether or not stakeholders will take action ( Luhmann, 1993 ). While perceptions of ‘external danger’ will not lead to action, perceptions of ‘internal Risk’ urge stakeholders to take action. The cases of the rivers Lippe and Emscher in the dense populated region between Duisburg and Dortmund in Germany illustrate how these theoretical concepts materialise in practice. This contribution shows how flood Risks are socially constructed and how this construction is influenced by the European flood Risk Management Plan. While clearing up some of the difficulties from the Flood Directive, the research shows a gap between the Flood Directive and the current theory and Planning practice, which needs to be addressed in further research.
-
implementing the european flood Risk Management Plan
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2016Co-Authors: Thomas Hartmann, Tejo SpitAbstract:In response to the extreme flood events of recent decades, the European Union has released the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), which requires the creation of flood Risk Management Plans. These Plans do not yet exist in practice, as water Management agencies have until 2015 to put them into action. This contribution will discuss two questions regarding the European flood Risk Management Plan: First, how is the new instrument integrated into the various member states, particularly with respect to the scenario approach? Second, how prepared are the institutions for the collaborative Planning paradigm of the flood Risk Management Plan, particularly with respect to the river basin districts approach? Citing examples from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Great Britain, this paper offers both a pessimistic and an optimistic perspective on the implementation of the new flood Risk Management instrument.
-
Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels - Consequences of the European flood Risk Management Plan
Environmental Science and Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Tejo SpitAbstract:The European flood Risk Management Plan is a new instrument introduced by the Floods Directive. It introduces a spatial turn and a scenario approach in flood Risk Management, ultimately leading to differentiated flood protection levels on a catchment basis. This challenges the traditional sources of legitimacy for flood Risk Management, which are predominantly founded on strong institutions and engineering solutions. Future flood Risk Management needs to incorporate stakeholders and citizens in the decision-making process because the choices for the flood Risk Management Plan will be more normative and political. In terms of concepts of legitimacy, this means an increasing importance of throughput legitimacy, complementing input and output legitimacy. This change shares similarities with a paradigm shift in spatial Planning around the 1970s. Therefore, this contribution argues that flood Risk Management, according to the European Floods Directive, can profit from experiences and approaches in spatial Planning.
Thomas Hartmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
constructing Risks internalisation of flood Risks in the flood Risk Management Plan
Environmental Science & Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Matthijs M D Roos, Tejo Spit, Thomas Hartmann, Georg G JohannAbstract:Abstract Traditional flood protection methods have focused efforts on different measures to keep water out of floodplains. However, the European Flood Directive challenges this paradigm ( Hartmann and Driessen, 2013 ). Accordingly, flood Risk Management Plans should incorporate measures brought about by collaboration with local governments to develop and implement these measures ( Johann and Leismann, 2014 ). One of the challenges of these Plans is getting and keeping stakeholders involved in the processes related to flood Risk Management. This research shows that that this challenge revolves around how flood Risks are socially constructed. Therefore it is essential to understand and explain the Risk perception of stakeholders. System Theory by Luhmann provides the analytical distinction between ‘internal Risk’ and ‘external danger’ as key concepts to understand whether or not stakeholders will take action ( Luhmann, 1993 ). While perceptions of ‘external danger’ will not lead to action, perceptions of ‘internal Risk’ urge stakeholders to take action. The cases of the rivers Lippe and Emscher in the dense populated region between Duisburg and Dortmund in Germany illustrate how these theoretical concepts materialise in practice. This contribution shows how flood Risks are socially constructed and how this construction is influenced by the European flood Risk Management Plan. While clearing up some of the difficulties from the Flood Directive, the research shows a gap between the Flood Directive and the current theory and Planning practice, which needs to be addressed in further research.
-
the flood Risk Management Plan towards spatial water governance
Journal of Flood Risk Management, 2017Co-Authors: Thomas Hartmann, Peter P J DriessenAbstract:The flood Risk Management Plan challenges both water engineers and spatial Planners. It calls for a new mode of governance for flood Risk Management. This contribution analyses how this mode of governance distinguishes from prevalent approaches. Spatial Planning and water Management in Europe are explored in terms of their actor relation, their institutional context, and their approach to the object. These three characteristics of the modes of governance are compared with the governance requirements that flood Risk Management demands. It is concluded that the governance of flood Risk Management in Europe should strike a balance between comprehensive and hierarchical Planning on the one hand, and interactive Planning on the other hand, leading to a spatial water governance.
-
the flood Risk Management Plan between spatial Planning and water engineering
Journal of Flood Risk Management, 2017Co-Authors: Thomas Hartmann, Robert JuepnerAbstract:In response to the extreme flood events of recent decades, the European Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) requires Member States of the European Union to develop Flood Risk Management Plans (Dworak & Gorlach 2005). These Plans need to be in place by 2015 and set‘appropriate objectives for the Management of flood Risk and [reduce] potential adverse consequences of flooding for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity’ (Floods Directive 2007: Article 7 II). They are based on river basin districts. This special issue addresses the new Plan instrument that is unique in terms of its governance since it formally changes flood Risk Management from being predominantly the responsibility of water engineering, to incorporate spatial Planning in the Management process.
-
implementing the european flood Risk Management Plan
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2016Co-Authors: Thomas Hartmann, Tejo SpitAbstract:In response to the extreme flood events of recent decades, the European Union has released the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), which requires the creation of flood Risk Management Plans. These Plans do not yet exist in practice, as water Management agencies have until 2015 to put them into action. This contribution will discuss two questions regarding the European flood Risk Management Plan: First, how is the new instrument integrated into the various member states, particularly with respect to the scenario approach? Second, how prepared are the institutions for the collaborative Planning paradigm of the flood Risk Management Plan, particularly with respect to the river basin districts approach? Citing examples from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Great Britain, this paper offers both a pessimistic and an optimistic perspective on the implementation of the new flood Risk Management instrument.
Elena Zepharovich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
assessing adaptive capacity through governance networks the elaboration of the flood Risk Management Plan in austria
Environmental Science & Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Michele Graziano Ceddia, Elena Zepharovich, Dimitris Christopoulos, Yeray HernandezAbstract:Abstract One of the consequences of climate change is the increase in the frequency and entity of extreme weather events, including floods. Any strategy dealing with the various impacts of climate change must focus not only on mitigation aspects, but also on improving on the level of adaptive capacity. Over the past decades there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of floods in Europe, a fact which has prompted the European Union (EU) to put forward the Directive 60/2007 (the ‘Floods Directive’), requiring Member States to produce a comprehensive Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) by 2015. The purpose of this paper is to assess how the implementation of the ‘Floods Directive’ has contributed to the level of adaptive capacity in Austria, a EU member State hosting an important river basin. By relying on the existing literature, the paper first describes the governance system associated with flood Risk Management in Austria prior to the elaboration of the FRMP. Subsequently, based on collected primary data, the paper studies the governance structure associated with the elaboration of the FRMP in Austria by using descriptive social network analysis (SNA) and discusses the implications in terms of adaptive capacity of flood governance. The elaboration of the FRMP has had the merit of coordinating the pre-existing regional legislation into a coherent national framework, under the leadership of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Environment. A limited number of other public administration stakeholders act as brokers, but the overall governance structure appears centralized and exhibits low modularity. Such a structure, moreover, is exclusively composed of public administration actors with no de facto participation of other stakeholders (e.g., NGOs and private companies). The incorporation of a wider set of organizations in the earlier phases of the policy cycle is welcomed, in order to make the whole process less technocratic and effectively improve the overall level of adaptive capacity.
-
prescriptive conflict prevention analysis an application to the 2021 update of the austrian flood Risk Management Plan
Environmental Science & Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Yeray Hernandezgonzalez, Michele Graziano Ceddia, Elena Zepharovich, Dimitris ChristopoulosAbstract:Flood events have become more frequent in Europe, and the adaptation to the increasing flood Risks is needed. The Flood Directive set up a series of measures to increase European resilience, establishing Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) at the level of the river basin district as one relevant action. In order to efficiently fulfil this objective, the involvement of stakeholders as well as the analysis of their roles, responsibilities, and demands has been considered to be crucial to develop FRMPs. As a result, the hypothesis tested in this paper is that a consensus solution for the 2021 update Austrian Flood Risk Management Plan is feasible. To demonstrate this, both in-depth interviews and questionnaires to key Austrian stakeholders are implemented. The information collected in both participatory techniques are then used to run a conflict prevention analysis. The results show that (a) improving the coordination among regions and including better land-use Planning approaches are preferable to a hypothetical business as usual scenario; and (b) a consensus solution for the 2021 update Austrian FRMP might be achievable on the basis of both a deep discussion on the state-of-the art and green infrastructure development.
Georg G Johann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
constructing Risks internalisation of flood Risks in the flood Risk Management Plan
Environmental Science & Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Matthijs M D Roos, Tejo Spit, Thomas Hartmann, Georg G JohannAbstract:Abstract Traditional flood protection methods have focused efforts on different measures to keep water out of floodplains. However, the European Flood Directive challenges this paradigm ( Hartmann and Driessen, 2013 ). Accordingly, flood Risk Management Plans should incorporate measures brought about by collaboration with local governments to develop and implement these measures ( Johann and Leismann, 2014 ). One of the challenges of these Plans is getting and keeping stakeholders involved in the processes related to flood Risk Management. This research shows that that this challenge revolves around how flood Risks are socially constructed. Therefore it is essential to understand and explain the Risk perception of stakeholders. System Theory by Luhmann provides the analytical distinction between ‘internal Risk’ and ‘external danger’ as key concepts to understand whether or not stakeholders will take action ( Luhmann, 1993 ). While perceptions of ‘external danger’ will not lead to action, perceptions of ‘internal Risk’ urge stakeholders to take action. The cases of the rivers Lippe and Emscher in the dense populated region between Duisburg and Dortmund in Germany illustrate how these theoretical concepts materialise in practice. This contribution shows how flood Risks are socially constructed and how this construction is influenced by the European flood Risk Management Plan. While clearing up some of the difficulties from the Flood Directive, the research shows a gap between the Flood Directive and the current theory and Planning practice, which needs to be addressed in further research.
Michele Graziano Ceddia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
assessing adaptive capacity through governance networks the elaboration of the flood Risk Management Plan in austria
Environmental Science & Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Michele Graziano Ceddia, Elena Zepharovich, Dimitris Christopoulos, Yeray HernandezAbstract:Abstract One of the consequences of climate change is the increase in the frequency and entity of extreme weather events, including floods. Any strategy dealing with the various impacts of climate change must focus not only on mitigation aspects, but also on improving on the level of adaptive capacity. Over the past decades there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of floods in Europe, a fact which has prompted the European Union (EU) to put forward the Directive 60/2007 (the ‘Floods Directive’), requiring Member States to produce a comprehensive Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) by 2015. The purpose of this paper is to assess how the implementation of the ‘Floods Directive’ has contributed to the level of adaptive capacity in Austria, a EU member State hosting an important river basin. By relying on the existing literature, the paper first describes the governance system associated with flood Risk Management in Austria prior to the elaboration of the FRMP. Subsequently, based on collected primary data, the paper studies the governance structure associated with the elaboration of the FRMP in Austria by using descriptive social network analysis (SNA) and discusses the implications in terms of adaptive capacity of flood governance. The elaboration of the FRMP has had the merit of coordinating the pre-existing regional legislation into a coherent national framework, under the leadership of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Environment. A limited number of other public administration stakeholders act as brokers, but the overall governance structure appears centralized and exhibits low modularity. Such a structure, moreover, is exclusively composed of public administration actors with no de facto participation of other stakeholders (e.g., NGOs and private companies). The incorporation of a wider set of organizations in the earlier phases of the policy cycle is welcomed, in order to make the whole process less technocratic and effectively improve the overall level of adaptive capacity.
-
prescriptive conflict prevention analysis an application to the 2021 update of the austrian flood Risk Management Plan
Environmental Science & Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Yeray Hernandezgonzalez, Michele Graziano Ceddia, Elena Zepharovich, Dimitris ChristopoulosAbstract:Flood events have become more frequent in Europe, and the adaptation to the increasing flood Risks is needed. The Flood Directive set up a series of measures to increase European resilience, establishing Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) at the level of the river basin district as one relevant action. In order to efficiently fulfil this objective, the involvement of stakeholders as well as the analysis of their roles, responsibilities, and demands has been considered to be crucial to develop FRMPs. As a result, the hypothesis tested in this paper is that a consensus solution for the 2021 update Austrian Flood Risk Management Plan is feasible. To demonstrate this, both in-depth interviews and questionnaires to key Austrian stakeholders are implemented. The information collected in both participatory techniques are then used to run a conflict prevention analysis. The results show that (a) improving the coordination among regions and including better land-use Planning approaches are preferable to a hypothetical business as usual scenario; and (b) a consensus solution for the 2021 update Austrian FRMP might be achievable on the basis of both a deep discussion on the state-of-the art and green infrastructure development.
